proove that love exists. we all know it does but i want hard evidence.
impossible to do isnt it.
god is love.

Almost everybody feels/experiences love>we know it's real or it exists> although some of us know it's a bio-chemical occurance in the brain>but something triggers it. We know the people that we love and love us >exist. It's mutual, provable & real.

You can't compare love to the existence of god>almost everyone lives & experiences love.

There is no evidence that love is god>if he is> he has a crappy way of showing it

Love to ya !

Next..........

Let's formulate this question differently.

What evidence do you have to "support" your claim that god exists.

Oh, but I disagree. God is god and believers claim he can do anything> this means he is quite capable of leaving footprints in the Alps>according to the bible he can do all kinds of cute tricks> like parting the sea by blowing through his nostrils..........

I think the authors of the New Testament had to quickly add in all of this faith stuff once they realized that the absence of any party tricks would soon come to people's attention.

Did it in the past when we weren't there to see it, now we are and he doesn't. How convenient.

Maybe God is like dark Matter of energy. Very elusive to prove existence. anyway if god exists he/she will be more like a creative principle in the universe than a person or personal god.

forgive my ignorance, I am not a fountain of knowledge but just as much to the extent we cant prove god exists I don't believe you can prove god doesn't...
Also, if god exists, he is keeping an epistemic distance meaning god does not intervene at beck and call but only when necessary... sorry, I do that word no justice, you'd benefit more from looking it up...

ermm I continuously say, maybe people actually follow the bible and practice it in their lives, but god did not write or ask for the bible to be written... and just because we are capable of doing something does not mean we should, and have you ever thought that maybe there is a god but he is more of an observer than doer?

Dark matter is fascinating.

Yes, I agree with your post.

You might want to talk this theory over with fellow christians, I heard a christian on this board claim god recently stopped nuclear bombs being launched and from the bible he doesnt seem rather observant to me in many places.

That's why i'm an agnostic.

I may have falsley assumed the poster was a christian. I see what you mean though.

No one can prove that God exists with evidence from our lifetimes (or even recorded time). Not in the way we consider something proven conventionally.

There is no scientific test that can prove or disprove him, and none of the miracles viewed by humans on almost a daily basis in the Old Testament have happened within recorded history to a significant amount of people, thus allowing validation. (The bible can not be used as an accurate record.)

Conversely, according to the bible, it was proven to the people of the time that God existed with physical manifestations witnessed by many. Why has it stopped?

The argument, with all evidence (or lack thereof) at this time can be simplified to this:

"Prove to me that God doesn't exist."

"No, you prove to me that he doesn't."

If the word "God" refers to the one who created the universe and its form, then there is an illustration that helps understand why people find it so easy to believe in such a Being. When you or I go to an art museum and we view beautiful marble sculptures, we take it for granted that a sculptor sculpted them. The marble did not simply appear in that form by itself. We know that because marble has proven to be incapable of scultping itself. Or if we were wandering in the middle of the desert and we stumbled across a cell phone, we would not assume that the cell phone was constructed by natural chance. We would immediately assume that it was made by some intelligent being. No one would assume that the cell phone constructed itself or that it came together by random chance. Similarly many who observe the universe react by assuming that some eternal entity that is separate from the universe created it. This is particularly reasonable to many people when the complexity of biological life is considered, not to mention the psychological concepts of personality, consciousness and emotion. People simply find it difficult to believe that such aspects of our experience came into existence from the observable universe apart from a greater Being, especially when considering that the universe itself appears to have had its own origin.

Naturally this sort of rational argument leads only to the God of the philosophers, but nevertheless it is one explanation why the existence of a Creator appears obvious to many.

Some issues that remain unresolved from this argument are: (1) Where did this Creator come from? (2) Is he personal? (3) Why does He not reveal Himself in a way that is more palatable to contemporary Western people? and (4) Why doesn't he currently do anything about the problem of evil in the world?

(1) There is a question that has been mind-boggling to humanity and that is this: What caused the existence of the universe? Any answer that is given to that question is inadequate if it involves a something that has an origin itself. The only answer that can be given to that question is that there must be some entity that is either eternal in character or exists outside of time. Theists opt for a God-being who Himself actually created time.

(2) From a purely philosophical point of view it is almost impossible to determine whether or not the Creator is personal. However, if one were to consider the existence of human personality, it may point to the existence of a personal Creator. It is difficult to think that human conscience, emotion, experience could come about from anything that is impersonal in nature. For Christianity (which has a revelational-principle in the Bible) there is an answer to this question in their doctrine of the Trinity (the belief that there is one God in whom there exists three persons). The Trinity represents a God who has personhood because he has always had other persons to interact with. Contrarily a God who existed alone with no other person to interact with could not account for the existence of personal experience. For example, love cannot exist where there is no object to love. But the Trinity allows God the Father to Love both God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

(3) Many times contemporary people are upset that God does not prove himself in a way that is consistent with current western scientific thinking (e.g. the scientific method). Nevertheless the creation itself is a testimony to the fact that some entity created it. Christians take comfort in the fact that the God of the Bible has done many unquestionable works in history that point to his interaction with humanity. In Christianity, God created a nation of people to reveal himself through in the Old Testament, He Himself became a human being in the person of Jesus and the Bible is a book that claims to reveal Him and His mind written through allegedly inspired human authors. Significantly for Christians Jesus has become the most famous person in world history and the Bible is the most translated and readily available book in the entire world. According to the CIA fact book (2002) Christianity is the largest world religion making up 33.02% of the world (followed by Islam at 20%). In a modern critical worldview this is not a sufficient proof that the Creator has communicated with humanity. However, for many Christians this is something that strengthens their faith.

(4) Many people argue that if there is a God, then why does he allow the existence of evil in the world? There are only a few options when addressing the philosophical problem of evil. The problem exists for both atheists and theists. The options are as follows: ( A ) There is no God and evil will remain unpunished forever. ( B ) There is a God, but he himself is evil and consequently will never punish evil. ( C ) There is a good God who hates evil, and although He chooses not to punish it now He will in the future.

I however, would not approve of anyone laughing at an atheist. The theist who mocks atheists by laughing at them rather than trying to understand them is a pathetic excuse for someone who truly affirms the reality of a greater power.

Have a great day.

These are really good analogies, but I would like to add that while we have seen people carve marble, and we have seen a cell phone being a manmade product, no one has seen a god (or flying spaghetti monster, or big bang) create a universe, therefore we have no way to make a logical, reason based decision either way with the evidence (or lack of) that we have.

Also, the disproving the existence of a creator of the universe does not automatically disprove the existence of God.

I am just hard pressed to see any evidence supporting a creator or a god.

Yes and the existence of the universe doesn't boggle my mind.

The size does ,yes.

According to religion. Who's to say that God is inherently undetectable? How do you know that he isn't just disguised as a person walking among us?



It does me, but that's for another thread.

Nothing about what I said was according to religion, I don't think.

What I meant was that we can't prove he exists or doesn't.

Even if he was walking around disguised as a person, that would not be proof, would it?

I think I am misunderstanding. Or you are...lol.

I'm just curious. If you don't believe that there is an eternal entity that created the universe, then it seems to me that there would be two options remaining:
(1) You must believe that the universe caused its own existence, or
(2) You believe that the universe is eternal.

If you believe (1), then where is the evidence that the universe has the ability to bring itself into existence? As far as I know, there is no evidence that it has any creating power that could account for the creation of matter that previously did not exist.

If you believe (2), then how do you account for the scientific evidence that suggests that the universe had a beginning in actual time?

However, there may be a flaw in my logic. Let me know what you think!

You say that you are looking for truth.

But if I gave you the truth, would you believe it?

What if you didn't know if it were the truth. Would you still beileve it?

Sorry, but that's like asking us to PROVE that we're human.

I'm not anti-atheist. I used to be atheist . But as a former atheist and even if I were an atheist today, I'd say it's rude that they said what they said to you--but also rude for you to retaliate in this way. I think we need to stop questioning each others' faith because it's tearing us apart. But since you want an answer:

FAITH is a quality that is possessed when one or thing believes in something ultimately, but the something cannot be proven.

We have FAITH in God (or gods). Or uh, people who believe in God (or gods) . But people have faith in God (or gods) just as people have faith in the theory that we ARE people. We don't know that we're people. The way our brains recept our eye patterns could be tottaly wrong and opposite. WE could be APES, and the APES could be US!!! But we have faith that our brains are acting as the should compatibly to our eyes, just as some have FAITH in God (or gods).

That's just the simplest answer. We cannot PROVE there is a god/ are gods, but the fact that we have faith that one or some could exist should be reason enough. If a person does not believe in a god or gods, it simply means that they do not ultimately believe that the god or gods exist, and that's okay, and reason enough, too. You have to look at it from multiple points of view.

Uhm, this is all just my opinion btw I dont wanna sound like Mrs. Smarty Pants.

And just to stop debate about it, the literal meaning for god is "The perfect human."

So it could rely totally on what your idea of perfect is.

Ah, but would you be able to prove that person is God? How would one go about proving that person was God?

Ask.

Matthew 7:7.

Well....to prove God exists you would have to define God...and since the best most accurate definition of God is true existence (100% self-sufficient), then one would have to prove that something 100% self-sufficient exists, and if one assumes that there is only one God (or one true existence) then one could only find that existence by finding God. In which case, God is not provable. If anything, the closest thing resembling what God is, is the universe. Of course, a theist believes that the universe is not self-sufficient because the theist believes in God. But to the non-theist who would assume that the universe has no beginning, no end, and is self-sufficient it would be logical to say that the universe is God. However, since the universe (as far as we know) is not sentient, the only logical conclusion one could come to without any other influence in either direction would be that there is no God. Of course, I , as a theist have had such influence, yet to this conversation that has no bearing as far as "proof" is concerned.

Conclusion based on proof=No God(s)

Not even that can change who Iam, but it can Take God, and God's love out of the equasion for you, God is not a dictator, and does not want forced love, if you do not believe or love God , you do not have to have God. simple no?

Truly You can have it your way, making your belief a truth. but your truth will never be Mine. Unless you have a change of heart and Believe in Unconditional love, Of Father and Mother(God) and as I said Its ok if you don't.

Love Omnaka

ummm firstly, I am not a Christian but the misconception is understood... secondly...

QUOTE

I heard a Christian on this board claim god recently stopped nuclear bombs being launched

keyword being claim, he/she made a claim, not provide proof...
I hate repeating myself but... no I'm not going to repeat my self, just look back and read my second post...

Oh, well I have been told I am a seeker, an agnostic if you will, however I refuse to be associated into a certain belief system... I am of my own...
yes I would've presumed you would understand...

love is known as real because we are able to experience it through feeling. thats the end of the line when it comes to proving it. there is no evidence that love is god but there is also no evidence that there is love or god. proving there is either of the two is impossible. us trying to fathem the concept of god is like a single celled organism trying to get a phd in quantum physics. far beyond impossible. the title of this forum seems oxymoron.

peace

This reminds me of the magic thread where a vast majority was asking people to "prove" magic works lmao im glad you have put the shoe on the other foot now.

Well, I don't have any problem with that. I think the problem of truth is a problem, based merely on semantics. After all, the gospel of John says "God" is a word, only. It is a matter of interpretation and perhaps of use of this "word". Swedenborg says the return of Jesus is not a physical reappearance, but the publishing of the truth. As for Swedenborg's interpretation, that Jesus is the "Father" as to his pre-incarnation state, the son as to his physical appearance, and the Holy Spirit after his resurrection, ruling from heaven, I have serious doubts. This is the big movement now, telling us to regard Jesus as "God, the Messiah".

I don't find this as an irreducible conclusion. I, too, want the truth, or facts regarding all things. Not just physical facts or "science" but in regard to philosophical issues, and for me this reduces itself to questions about consciousness. I think the problems of language and propogation of personal insights by seers of the past into the future produces many possibilities of mis-interpretation. One thing I feel is certain: Jesus was breaking the rules in teaching that the "laws of Moses" were mostly man-made, not "God" made laws. The literature of the Hebrew or Mosaic tradition are proven to be a mixture of different cultures including Sumerian and Hindu or so-called "Aryan" cultures. In Hinduism there is Manu as the Biblical Noah, the Sumerian traditions lead us to Gilgamesh, and this confusion of stories tells us one thing: writers borrowed, fused and confused many different lines of oral tradition to such an extent, for anyone to say the Bible is the "perfect word of God" is a manifestation of unwillingness to be scholarly and exact in a scientific way. Scientific method permits us to have no respect for persons just as God is said to be no respector of persons. The Hebrew tradition can be seen as a breaking away from the personality worship that obtained in the "Ends of the Earth", that is, India, where this tradition has no greater example. You can read the earliest scripture of India in the Rig Veda, and it is altogether clear that there was an evolution of thought about deity. The Upanishads seem almost anachronistic or possibly they are examples of an advancement towards an understanding of principles or patterns. And the Upanishads are practically 99 per cent atheistic. They term "God" or the "primal principle" as common to everything and everyone and accessible to all, devolving to one thing: consciousness. This was later developed to an extreme in the Yoga Vashishtha as a supposed chapter of the Ramayana. In this revered book of the Hindu tradition, all is only consciousness, and consciousness alone is to be revered. The author, supposedly Vashishtha, has even the gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva saying consciousness alone is the worthy object of worship, they all being subject to this. The postulate of this ancient manuscript is that even matter and energy as we experience it everyday is merely a manifestation of consciousness. The ultimate iconoclasm! Even time travel is described in this work. Well, be that as it may, I would not say it is the fount of "truth". I hold a grain of salt for everything. Yet it is fascinating that someone, even if we don't believe this was written in the Rama era (Supposedly 10,000 or so BC), but somewhere around 1000 AD, could delve into problems of first principles and willing to go against "god" worship is amazing. Maybe even more amazing, a culture that was willing to permit wide publication that had Rama as a student who had to learn. Well, here and there in this work, Rama is described as the supreme Being or incarnation of Vishnu, so perhaps fear kept the priestcraft from expurgating the entire text. In other texts one can find in ancient literature from India, matter, energy and intelligence are viewed as timeless entitites with no priority, but simply the stuff of all differentiation. In one Upanishad, they even speculate: "only the gods know, or, perhaps, even they don't know".

Well, I see all this ancient writing only as a record of the evolution of thinking. I am a Deweyist. I am not willing to subscribe to any belief unless it yields practical results. In saying so, I am willing to believe there is a power that, in order to be active, it must first be believed in. It seems likely to me that such a power to be truly accessible must reside in our own consciousness, the only thing we really know by first hand contact. All else we know we know through transmission. Some say even consciousness is transmitted, but I don't follow that. It is like saying we sense sensing, and it is a tautology.But as far as our consciousness as we know is indissolubly connected to our bodies, we may as well see our bodies as generators and concentrators of this "power" or medium for "transeunce". An hallucination is an immanent thing we suppose to be outside. But "transeunt" means that there is actually some effect outside our bodies that is the result of something we do or emanate from within our bodies. It may be that this can have a Jungian summative effect, and multiples effect a larger effect. The "collective" consciousness thing. Well, that is a sad thing, seeing that most of mankind, politically, is insane. I know most people just want to have a happy life, to raise kids, see grandkids, get along with everyone. Only problem is, most people also see "normal" life as supposing it is necessary to have designated "deciders" who can want more than just to get along with everyone. And so, we have to see that "truth" for the ambitious interferes with the "good" we want. Our "good" governs what is true, but the "truth" of the politician sees a different "good", and what you think is good is not important. Your "good" is expendible, just as you are. And any "truth" that doesn't allow them to see you as expendible is in their way. So we have accomodated to this pressure of the power hungry b*******, and we see the "truth" of eternal life and heaven and all else in the light of political expediency, not in true truth. We are accostomed to this. We are in a mob mentality today, and especially now, with the pervasiveness of commercialism in all forms of media. The only hope is probably in the internet and word of mouth. I am certain of only one thing: if my consciousness, and yours, is not "God", there is no God, and that God is no use or any good at all unless it delivers us from this burden of what we call "truth of the world" as we have it today. It is nothing but mean, ugly and horrible. If we want a loving "God", we better start acting the role, because it isn't coming from outer space or the Bible belt or Washington, Israel, India or anywhere "else". You want "God", then be Good, be God.

The verifiable kind


fullywired

So eighty replies later and all we've been told is "it can't be proven". Okay, so then why do people claim to know that god is real?

Unfortunately, to know the truth you will need to know god. If you never get to know him you will never be sure of the truth (he may exist/ he may not) Once you experience him/get to know him you will have enough proof to be certain of the truth ( "he" exists)

You dont sound like the sort of person who will accept other people's opinions or even their testimonies of their encounters with god, in that you want proof.

So how is that different from delusion?

Religious experience.

A great number of people “feel” that there is a “God”. Once again, using Ockham’s razor, most feelings related to the supernatural are effectively explained by childhood indoctrination. This is irrefutably supported by observation of other cultures. However, there are people who actually experience powerful perceptions of connection to a “higher plane”.

These feelings are expressions of the way we think and can be altered by damage to the neuronic structure, physical exertion, religious fervour, by inadequate nutrition, by heat/cold and by drugs and other toxins. The brain can modify in function if we have a cold or flu, genetic flaw or if we are in pain and possibly for many other reasons.

Brains are in a continual state of change of sequence of firings. If, for example, too much carbon dioxide invades the hypothalamus, the result can be what is known as a mystical or religious experience and other effects. People can really believe they are in contact with a higher plane when this happens, and that higher plane parallels the existing cultural expectations of the location of that person. Bertrand Russell, famous Atheist, philosopher, writer and all round good guy could bring this condition on at will, once when he was riding his pushbike. LSD and other drugs can give similar effects.

It is not that long ago that the association between epilepsy and experiencing visions was unknown. Joan of Arc suffered from Temporal Lobe epilepsy, and she fought and died for her illusions. This is another example of the intricate workings of the brain.
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/doesgodexist.htm

I cant answer for people in general, but in my case (and perhaps for some others) it is because we have encountered "his" physical presence and experienced "his" ability to perform all sorts of physical miracles within the real world. ( I have a suspicion that that used to be the reason why most people believed in god . They either experienced his miracles or they believed those who described them.) Now of course such people are much more cautious in their willingnes either to recount their experiences or to accept those of other people for fear of ridicule at best, and psychiatric assessment at worst.
All I can say, without repeating my experiences yet again, is that god is as real, and concrete, a presence in my life as my motor car or any member of my family. Thus I no more "believe" in god than I "believe" in my motor car or my sister etc. They are just here with me in the world as a physical presence.

Ya wanna deny my car is real , or my sister? Yeah well what gives you the right to deny my god is real. What, ya want photos? Yeah, well you got as much chance, as getting one of my wife (she's real to, but she doesn't do photos either)

Seriously, there have been times I wished I had a camera with me . I would be fascinated to see what an angel turned out like, on either old fashioned, or digital, photos. Generally, however, visions, prohetic dreams, angels and aural warnings are difficult to capture physically. What can be offered as evidence, are the results of such events in a person's life, on both big and small scales.

And fully wired, while all you say /quote is true, sometimes "weird s..t" (known in some circles as miracles) actually happens. No hallucination can have an effect on the physical world which can be witnessed by independent persons. Hallucinations cannot give detailed and accurate visions of future events .

The human body cannot produce an aural "hallucination" warning of future events, and thus changing the course of your life, unless of course the human psyche is itself capable of seeing into the future,, and relaying a message back. But if you believe that, then you might as well accept the existence of god. Either that, or we all have the potential to be gods, and it manifests itself more in some than others. But even I am not crazy enough to believe that. No; god is a perfectly acceptable and logical explanation for me.

I both agree and disagree. "Science" is some body of knowing that is reproducible and reducible to measure and quantification or able to be fitted into some arbitrary standard of measure according to our "authorities" or as Michio Kachu (sp?) often says, as "We physicists" hold.

Well, what standard of "science" can measure your own consciousness? What is the quantitative value for that? Do you have more, or less consciousness than Jesus or Buddha or the Dalai Lama has? Or, is the quality of the consciousness measurable?

I'm not trying to be a smart alec here Alex, really! I have lost faith in science because "science" is like lightyears behind the cutting age in medicine. They have done nothing to understand the healthy, as opposed to the diseased. So, they study diseased, and that is done with scientific criteria. What are they 'proving"? They can describe the outward appearances of almost any disease you like to delineate or name, but their efforts at actually healing is all done within the limits of their bosses the insurance agencies who live by "actuarial tables" and predictions of "likelihood" of survival. These idiots live in a world of mortal limitations that are supported by their actions in not paying for alternative methods of treatment, and when a person dies, lacking all faith or "payment" towards alternative practitioners, they say: see, told ya. So, is that "science" Alex?

Follow the money is a more reliable dictum than "follow the science", Alex. Here in Oregon, the idiot voters even overwhelmingly supported a bill that was unapposed by the hospital and health insurance lobbies that gives them the right to die; in the same year this was voted in, there was a measure to compel the insurance companies to pay for any or all alternative therapies that might keep a person alive or give them some reason to live. This was vigorously opposed by the financial interests in the form of hospitals and insurance combines. And the idiot voters voted it down, out of fear of "rising" insurance costs. Imagine that? And was this "science" Alex? Was this part of the proof you are talking about?

Freedom of choice supposes that there is a spectrum of viable or practical or practicable choices. If Krogers own's all the stores with the different names, and all the tv stations in your town are actually owned by one concern, and all the products you want are made in China, and all the "proofs" are produced by "scientists" paid by commercial interests or influenced by "practical" concerns that devolve upon the dollar, what choice do you have, Alex, in terms of "proof" and "science"? Well, Alex, I don't call BS on you, but I do call BS on the idea you just enunciated.

When I saw God the other day, at a coffe shop, and he wanted some spare change for a cup, I had to refuse, not because I didn't know or think he was God, but because, I don't think he should drink Coffee at 6 oclock at night. Now if he wanted a beer, that would have been a different thing. (It turned out, he bought me a beer, and thanked me for not aiding a bad habit).

Simple. Delusions ,(as with hallucinations outlined in my post above) cannot have a physical effect on the real world or people in it. They might create visions, but those visions can not come true in every detail. Delusions in rare cases may even be shared, but again they will clearly be delusions to oiutsiders. While we cannot see the wind, if we see a flag flying or a house destroyed by a cyclone we know the wind exists through its effects. If something displays the ability to make physical changes in the real world and these can be verified by others then it is not a delusion.
I often describe it as an entity, because I do not know for sure it is a god. However it has god like powers, displays an interest in my well being, and acts to protect me. It talks to me sometimes, in answer to questions (actually we converse).

.I say again, I am an intelligent, well educated man who believes in the scientific method and in logic. I have never suffered any mental illness not even depression. I have not taken any non prescription drugs including alcohol or cigarettes for over 30 years. A classical "angel" came before me in a pillar of light . First it told me it would take away a physical addiction of several years to nicotine and then it immediately did.

I have no physical illness which may cause hallucinations, and don't worry I have been tested up to, and including, mri scans of my brain, So I seek logical rational explanations for close to a lifetime's experiences of weird events.

The closest experience I can find in any literature is that described by people, both historical and contemporary, who believe god is interacting with them. I don't know, but if it walks like a god, talks like a god and has the powers to go with it, a sane guy should hedge his bets, and take no chances, dont you think?

I have never experienced such phenomena myself or met anyone who claimed to have experienced it .All we hear is annecdotal accounts and I am afraid I need something a little more concrete to convince me .So you can understand my scepticism



From "Beginning the World" by Karen Armstrong - former nun.

"My neurologist once told me that people with temporal lobe epilepsy are very often intensely religious. Certainly just before I have a grand mal fit I have a 'vision' of such peace, joy and significance that I can only call it God. What does this say about the whole nature of religious vision? Certain episodes in the lives of the saints have acquired a new meaning for me. When Theresa of Avila had her three-day vision of hell, was she simply having a temporal lobe attack? The horrors she saw are similar to those I have experienced, but in her case informed by the religious imagery of her time. Like other saints who have 'seen' hell she describes an appalling stench, which is part of an epileptic aura. Is it possible that the feeling I have had all my life that something - God, perhaps? - is just over the horizon, something unimaginable but almost tangibly present, is simply the result of an electrical irregularity in my brain? It is a question that can't yet be answered, unless it be that God, if He exists, could have created us with that capacity for Him, glimpsed at only when the brain is convulsed. What I can say, however, is that if my 'visions' have sometimes let me into 'Hell' they have also given me possible intimations of a Heaven, which I would not have been without."


fullywired

HAHA if I remember right Fullywired, you said that even if someone was healed and it was medically verified you would STILL be almost completely skeptical? (Doubting Thomas)

Hairston

Good questions. They definitely made me think. Here is what I came up with. Even though I am hard pressed to see the evidence for a creator, I have not ruled it out as a possibility. (As a background note, I am an agnostic, not an atheist, and I have never tried to prove or disprove the existence of god or a creator because I honestly believe that we can't know for sure.)

But to get to your other beliefs:

(1) that the universe caused it's own existence: to me, this is just as likely as a creator making the universe. As a human, bound by the perceptions humans have, I can not fully comprehend the entire universe creating itself, even in the Big Bang theory, because in my entire life I have never known something to be created out of absolutely nothing. Even though I can't grasp the concept completely, I don't rule it out. Just because I do not fully comprehend how something happens, it does not mean it can't. I don't fully understand how an airplane is able to fly, but I know they do.

(2) that the universe is eternal: this again, is just as likely. Just like before, as a human, I can't fully comprehend what eternity is, because everything I have ever experienced in my life (including my life) has an end and a beginning. The universe could very well be eternal, just because I can't understand that doesn't mean it can't be possible.

So, basically, I am hard pressed to find evidence supporting any of the theories, and all of them are impossible for a human to understand fully. I think this just proves to me again, that we will not be able to know either way, in this humanly form. I don't know if we will ever know.

That's perfectly understandable fully wired , and as I've said before it was my attitude, until inexplicable things started happening to me(not all of a religious nature.) I also find lost objects for people on occasions and do other weird things as many of my students could verify. I was brought to this forum several years ago because of unusaual things in my life and looking for answers It is a place I feel able to talk freely about things which understandably I cannot talk about with my colleagues. (although they are also aware of some unusual non religious paranormal events in my life)

I just put these things out there because I think it is important for people to be aware that not everyon'es life experiences follow the "norm." Also, I am always seeking information, other people's experiences etc .

When "this" (The paranormal but not the "religious") all started, in my early teenage years I had some bad experiences in telling people about it so I shut up. Now, approaching 60, I really don't give a damn, except that as a teacher I have to be careful to not look too weird.(although in this day and age there is a lot of worse weirdness out there)

I may not fully understand, myself, why I talk about my experiences so much on this forum, but one reason is so that others with similar experiences in any of the areas I discuss will know that paranormal/supernatural events are not always attributable to ANY known scientific or physical cause. Sometimes they are real, even if so far inexplicable.

So you may, understandably, choose not to believe me, but another reader, some place and time, may just say, "so that happened to someone else, just maybe I experienced something which merits further investigation," rather than simply believing they are hallucinating or delusional
(I do appreciate that for all the reasons you outlined, the majority of people may well be experiencing delusions or hallucinations)

that pic of that womans ass is just halfway to were you need to go ,because if you use that part of the body to represent the mother at the base and climb that latter of lights that makes you you, (chakra's)and they shine like a rainbow of color how jesus shined ,and when one reaches the seventh which is the crown chakra one is one with God our father that's if you were searching for him.

but let's say he come to you and it is your time to stand in front of the father and be judged for what you have done and don't forget the judging is not only this time as you wear your coat of flesh but our father and his angel's will reach back into that closet of your's and see atleast two other coate's and judge them as well.

What?

Don't drink and post.

what ? the word what is not a good way to start a debat ,this thread is about god our father and how can one prove that there is a God and this god made me in his image for i 'm my father's son by the blood of my mother and the blood of my father come me .

i don'ty drink that much it's the use of kanna bossam or canaby that bring's into the holy spirit you know like moses when he go the mt to talk to god he put on himself the oil that god gave hime from the burning bush 9lb of canaby and 7 quart's of hind olive oil mix her together with some cinnamine and spice and then everything is nice.

When are you going to provide this proof? (not trying to be offensive)

Hairston

o.K this proof that you cannot see forwhich i am saddened to hear is right in front of you.

first the i am in you remember this is a personal journey and by finding this i am that is you which are the seven chakra's that are.

start at the bottum the base use the color red as a anchor and feel this energy from our mother earth come up into you.

you see most peaple only reach the first 3 of the 7 and are quite happy to stay there for this three are of the lower.

when one seaches for God our father one must go all the way in order to see the whole that is.

and if you are to blind to see the lord 's hand that has been streaghted out to pick you up out of that ditch ,and you cannot hear hime calling you from the edge of that abiss that your in .

one would think that you don't want God so when the lord comes what makes you so good for him what is it about you that the lord should stop and reviele himself to you there are plenty of other's that diserve him why you?

Oh.